I'd never looked at SLF4J before. Thanks for pointing me at it this morning, Oleg. It looks really nice. Like, really, really, nice.
Interesting to note that discussions on the SLF4J-Dev mailing list have a number of Apache-related people participating: John E. Conlon Ceki Gülcü Jacob Kjome Jukka Zitting Trustin Lee etc.... This is also interesting: <blockquote> SLF4J offers a JCL binding, found in the file slf4j-jcl.jar. The JCL binding will delegate all logging calls made through SLF4J API to JCL. Thus, if for some reason an existing application must use JCL, your part of that application can still code against the SLF4J API in a manner transparent to the larger application environment. </blockquote> To me there are two good things about SLF4j: * Solves the same problem as JCL, but without the complexity: http://www.slf4j.org/pipermail/dev/2007-February/000810.html * Much nicer to use in the application: logger.debug("Temperature set to {}. Old temperature was {}.", t, oldT); java.util.logging kind of supports #2, but it's not as pleasant. logger.log(Level level, String msg, Object[] params) yours, Julius On 3/17/07, Ortwin Glück <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Oleg, That's interesting news. In my opinion we should offer our users the best possible compatibility and interoperability. That means if the world uses JCL we should use it as well. HttpClient is, after all, just yet another library. I think we do best if we use the same logging toolkit that our most prominent and most important users are using: Axis, JBoss, HtmlUnit etc. We should avoid using an exotic logging toolkit. Odi Oleg Kalnichevski wrote: > Folks, > > According to the recent discussions on the Commons-Dev list it appears > that Commons Logging is not going to be actively developed further, JCL > 2.0 is very unlikely to happen and those projects that rely on Java 1.4 > or newer are advised to migrate to java.util.logging API. > > http://www.nabble.com/Re%3A-Commons-Logging-deprecated--was-Re% > 3A--logging--1.1.1-release--p9427138.html > > That poses a question whether we should revisit our decision to continue > using JCL for HttpClient 4.0 or should consider migrating to another > logging toolkit. > > My personal preference for JCL over SLF4J was based on the premise (1) > we ought to eat our own dog food (2) JCL was actively developed. Since > that no longer appears to be the case I am not sure sticking to JCL in > the long run gives us any benefits. > > How do you all feel about it? Shall we once again discuss our options > and reconsider the choice of a logging toolkit for HttpClient 4.0? > > Please make your opinion known > > Evil Comrade Oleg > > PS: All this makes me very happy HttpCore is not dependent on any > logging toolkit > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- yours, Julius Davies 416-652-0183 http://juliusdavies.ca/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
